Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

1

PSCI 3405A

Comparative Public Policy Analysis Fridays, 11:35 am to 2:25 pm Please check Carleton Central for location

INSTRUCTOR: CONTACT: OFFICE HOURS:

Dr. Vandna Bhatia D685 Loeb Building

520-2600, ext. 1360

vandna_bhatia@carleton.ca

Fridays, 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm

C O U R S E D E SC RIP TIO N

Contemporary governments in industrialized democracies around the world are faced with many similar policy

problems: environmental sustainability, economic growth and employment, accessible health services, quality

education and reliable income support programs – to name just a few. Despite generally similar issues and resources,

national governments often respond with very different policy solutions to address these problems. In this course,

we will examine how and why policies dealing with a range of contemporary issues differ across nations. In

comparing nations, we will examine, compare, and contrast the influence of such factors as political ideas and

ideologies, institutional arrangements, and organized interests in shaping the process and substance of public policy.

The primary objective of this course is to introduce students to the cross-national study of public policies in the

industrialized democracies. We will examine and compare specific policy issues across several nations, as well as the

impact of globalization and global public policy on domestic policy dynamics. The course will familiarize students

with key theoretical frameworks and concepts for understanding, analyzing and comparing public policies and their

development across nations.

At the end of the course, students should:

Be able to compare and contrast the policies of industrialized nations in a number of issue areas;

Be familiar with broad theoretical concepts in analyzing and explaining policy content and processes across nations;

Be able to apply these concepts to the analysis of practical policy problems; Be able to identify patterns of policy development across different issue areas and across nations.

EVA LU ATIO N

ITEM DUE DATES WEIGHT

Essay 1 November 3, 2017 25%

Essay 2 December 8, 2017 30%

Article Précis (5 @ 3%) Various dates 15%

Presentations (5 @ 6%) Various dates 30%

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

2

Essays

Students must submit two papers over the course of the term. Each paper should provide an in-depth (2,500-3,000

words) comparative analysis of a policy issue area drawn from the preceding topics and readings of the course. The

objectives of each paper are to:

1. Describe policy variation across at least two countries, and 2. Explain why the policies vary.

Detailed instructions will be available on CULearn. You must submit both essays to receive a passing grade in the

course. All written assignments are due by 11:00 PM on the due date and must be submitted electronically via

CULearn as PDF files. All papers should include a cover page, conform to either Chicago or APA citation format and

meet minimum standards of essay writing for third year students. You are strongly encouraged to consult the

following style guides in preparing papers:

Strunk, White, and Angell (2000). The Elements of Style, 4th Ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Available online at http://www.bartleby.com/141/.

Schmidt, Diane E. (2005). Writing in Political Science: A Practical Guide. New York: Pearson Longman.

Late essays will be penalized. Late penalties will have an appreciable impact on your final grade, so please weigh

carefully your decision to submit a late paper. Papers submitted after 5 days (including weekends) past the due date

without official (medical) documentation of illness or incapacity are assigned a grade zero. Every effort will be made

to return papers within two weeks of the due date.

Article Précis Students are expected to compose 5 précis (~250 words/1 page, double-spaced), each summarizing one required

reading article (not textbook chapter) from a week in which you are not presenting. The objectives of these short

assignments are to hone your writing skills and encourage you to become a ‘deep reader’, that is, able to focus on the

meaning of what you read and not just its surface content. Deep reading skills are essential for comprehending

complex, academic texts and thinking critically about the issues, themes, concepts, and questions they raise.

Guidelines for composing précis will be provided. Each précis must be submitted by 10:00 AM on the day the reading

will be addressed in class. Précis submitted after the date and time deadlines will be given a zero.

Presentations

Each student will be required to participate in giving group presentations throughout the term, drawing on assigned

readings for a given week. Students will be randomly assigned to a country group, and will be responsible for making

a total of 5 presentations over the course of the term that provide an overview of key characteristics/parameters of

specific policies in that country. Since presentations are a group endeavor, all group members will be given the same

grade. Presentation grades are based on a combination of peer and instructor evaluations. Additional instructions

and details about presentations will be discussed in class and made available on CULearn.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

3

AC AD EM IC RE SO U R C E S

If you need assistance with… Refer to… Contact Information

Finding a tutor

One-on-one study skills support

Group study skills workshops

Reserving group study rooms

Student Academic Success

Centre – Learning Support

Services

302 Tory Building, 613-520-7850

http://www2.carleton.ca/sasc/

No appointments necessary.

Academic support and advice

Choosing, changing major

Academic planning

Student Academic Success

Centre – Academic Advising

302 Tory Building, 613-520-7850

http://www2.carleton.ca/sasc/

No appointments necessary.

A learning disability Paul Menton Centre

501 University Centre, 520-6608

http://www2.carleton.ca/pmc/

Developing writing skills Writing Tutorial Service

4th Floor MacOdrum Library, 613-520-

6632

http://www2.carleton.ca/sasc/writing-

tutorial-service/

Polishing English conversation

skills

International Student Services

Office, Conversation Groups

128 University Centre, 613-520-6600

http://www1.carleton.ca/isso/

Research assistance Research Help Desk,

MacOdrum Library

MacOdrum Library, 520-2735

http://www.library.carleton.ca/

Statistics/SPSS assistance (by

appointment only)

Data Centre, MacOdrum

Library

Statistical Consultant, 520-2600 x 2619

http://www.library.carleton.ca/contact/s

ervice-points/data-centre

Coping with stress or crisis Office of Student Affairs 613-520-2600, x 2573

http://www.carleton.ca/studentaffairs

Health and Counseling

Services

613-520-6674

www.carleton.ca/health

ST U DE N T C O NDU C T & AC A DE M I C R EGU LATIO N S

Students should come to class prepared having read the assigned material, and ready to engage in discussion of

questions and issues arising from it. Disagreement and debate are important and expected – they are a reflection of

some of the contentious issues we confront in public policy. Discussion also engages critical thinking and encourages

exchange of ideas. It is expected that you will be respectful and civil at all times in these discussions.

Students are expected to silence and put away cell phones once class starts. Computers and tablets may be used in

class to take notes, but are not to be used during class to check email, news sites, Facebook, etc.

Students are expected to be familiar with and abide by academic and conduct regulations of Carleton University.

Undergraduate students should consult the Academic Regulations listed in the Undergraduate Calendar, in particular

those dealing with Academic Integrity and Offenses of Conduct (sections 14 and 15). Additional information

regarding academic conduct and accommodations is appended to this syllabus.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

4

SC H EDU LE A ND RE ADI NG S

Required Texts

There is one required textbook for the course, in addition to assigned journal articles. Copies of the book are

available through Haven Books (43 Seneca Street, at Sunnyside)

Anneliese Dodds (2013). Comparative Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan

Journal articles and selected book chapters for required and supplementary reading are available electronically

online through the University library system or via the Ares link in CULearn. Those not available electronically are

available through the Library’s course reserves.

Supplementary Readings

Supplementary readings, listed in the syllabus, are available electronically or are on reserve at MacOdrum. Students

are expected to use and reference these articles in their country profiles on specific policy issues for essays and class

presentations.

The following textbooks are recommended for students who have a limited background in public policy, and are

available for supplementary reading through MacOdrum Library.

1. Adolino, J.R. and C.H. Blake (2010). Comparing Public Policies. C.Q. Press 2. Castles, F.G. (1998). Comparative Public Policy: Patterns of Post-war Transformation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 3. Clasen J. (1999). Comparative Social Policy: Concepts, Theories and Methods. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 4. Howlett, M., M. Ramesh, and A. Perl (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 3rd

Edition. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 5. Heidenheimer, A.J., H. Heclo and C.T. Adams (1990). Comparative Public Policy. Third Edition. New York: St.

Martins Press. 6. Stone D.A. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making, Third Edition. New York: WW Norton.

WEEK 1 (SEP 8): INTRODUCTION TO THEORIES OF PUBLIC POLICY

Introductions and orientation to course. Why study the politics of public policy? Why compare across nations? How are

the politics of policy making analyzed? What is the policy process?

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 1: Why Compare Public Policies (pp. 1-20)

Wilder, M. (2017). Comparative public policy: Origins, themes, new directions. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S47-66

Supplementary Readings:

Feldman E.J. (1978). Comparative public policy: Field or method? Comparative Politics, 10(2): 287-305

Gupta, K. (2012). Comparative public policy: Using the comparative method to advance our understanding of the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 40: 11–26.

Hassel A. (2015). Public Policy. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 19: 569–575 [on-line resource]

Lodge, M. (2006). Comparative public policy. In Fischer, F., & Miller, G. J. (Eds.). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. CRC Press.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

5

WEEK 2 (SEP 15): POLICY AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNANCE

What tools are available to governments in developing policy? How does the study of policy instruments advance the

comparative study of public policy? What is the relationship between policy instruments and governance?

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 2: Differences Between Public Policies (pp. 21-48)

Capano, G., & Lippi, A. (2017). How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers’ choices. Policy Sciences, 1-25.

Supplementary Readings:

Elmore, RF (1987). Instruments and strategy in public policy. Policy Studies Review, 7(1):174-186.

Hood, C. (2007) Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1): 127–44.

Lascoumes, P. and Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20: 1–21

Schneider A. and Ingram H. (1990). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics 52(2): 510-529.

Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science 19: 775-93.

WEEK 3 (SEP 22): DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES AND ECONOMIC POLICY

How do states differ with respect to their approaches to managing the economy? What factors contribute to the capacity

of states to manage economic policy effectively, such as during fiscal crisis? (How) do partisan political factors influence

government decisions? Presentations begin.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 3: Economic policy (pp. 49-82)

Blais, A., J. Kim & M. Foucault (2010). Public spending, public deficits and government coalitions. Political Studies, 58(5): 829-846.

Raess, D. and Pontusson, J. (2015). The politics of fiscal policy during economic downturns, 1981–2010. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1): 1–22.

Supplementary Readings:

Armingeon, K., Guthmann, K. & Weisstanner, D. (2016). Choosing the path of austerity: How parties and policy coalitions influence welfare state retrenchment in periods of fiscal consolidation. West European Politics 39(4), 628-647.

Cusack, T.R. (1999). Partisan politics and fiscal policy. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 464-468.

Hübscher, E. (2016). The politics of fiscal consolidation revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 36(4), 573-601.

Kickert W.J.M. (2012). State responses to the fiscal crisis in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, Public Management Review, 14(3): 299-309

Starke. P., A. Kaasch and F. Van Hooren (2014). Political parties and social policy responses to global economic crises: Constrained partisanship in mature welfare states. Journal of Social Policy, 43, 225-246

Wenzelburger, G. (2011) Political strategies and fiscal retrenchment: Evidence from four countries. West European Politics, 34(6): 1151-1184

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

6

WEEK 4 (SEP 29): POLICY REGIMES AND PENSION REFORM

How do states differ in their policies to support retirement? In what ways do past policies influence the prospects for

reforming social policy? How have nations attempted to or succeeded in reforming their pension systems in recent years?

Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 4: Welfare policy (pp. 83-112)

Ebbinghaus, B. (2015). The privatization and marketization of pensions in Europe: A double transformation facing the crisis. European Policy Analysis, 1(1): 56-73.

Lain, D., S. Vickerstaff and W. Loretto (2013). Reforming state pension provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon countries: Re-commodification, cost-containment or recalibration? Social Policy and Society, 12(1): 77-90.

Supplementary Readings:

Aysan, M. F. and Beaujot, R. (2009). Welfare regimes for aging populations: No single path for reform. Population and Development Review, 35: 701–720.

Béland, D., & Waddan, A. (2014). Policy change in flat pensions: Comparing Canada and the UK. Canadian Public Administration, 57(3), 383-400.

Bonoli, G. & B. Palier (2007). When past reforms open new opportunities: Comparing old-age insurance reforms in Bismarckian welfare systems. Social Policy and Administration, 41(6): 555–573

Jensen, C., Arndt, C., Lee, S., & Wenzelburger, G. (2017). Policy instruments and welfare state reform. Journal of European Social Policy

Leisering, L. (2012). Pension privatization in a welfare state environment: Socializing private pensions in Germany and the United Kingdom. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 28(2), 139-151.

Orenstein, M. A. (2013). Pension privatization: Evolution of a paradigm. Governance, 26: 259–281.

Palier, B. (2007). Tracking the evolution of a single instrument can reveal profound changes: The case of funded pensions in France. Governance, 20(1), 85-107.

WEEK 5 (OCT 6): POLICY REGIMES AND HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS What are the key policy tools that nations use to ensure affordable, high quality and equitable health care for their

citizens? How do different types of health financing and regulatory policies across nations affect citizens’ access to

health care? Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 5: Health Policy (pp. 113-134)

Wendt, C. (2014). Changing healthcare system types. Social Policy & Administration, 48: 864–882.

Supplementary Readings:

Flood, C., & Haugan, A. (2010). Is Canada odd? A comparison of European and Canadian approaches to choice and regulation of the public/private divide in health care. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 5(3), 319-341.

Frisina, L. (2008). Policy values and policy change in different healthcare systems: A comparative analysis of the British NHS and US private insurance system, Harvard Health Policy Review, 9(1):88–99.

Schmid, A., Cacace, M., Götze, R., & Rothgang, H. (2010). Explaining health care system change: Problem pressure and the emergence of “hybrid” health care systems. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 35(4): 455-486.

Steffen, M. (2010). Social health insurance systems: What makes the difference? The Bismarckian case in France and Germany. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 12(1-2), 141-161

Tenbensel, T., Eagle, S., & Ashton, T. (2012). Comparing health policy agendas across eleven high income countries: Islands of difference in a sea of similarity. Health Policy, 106(1), 29-36.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

7

Wendt, C., & Kohl, J. (2010). Translating monetary inputs into health care provision: A comparative analysis of the impact of different modes of public policy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 12(1-2), 11-31.

WEEK 6 (OCT 13): POLICY NETWORKS AND THE POLITICS OF CARBON MARKETS How do policy actors organize to influence public policy decisions, both domestically and cross-nationally? How have

business and industry groups shaped the selection of policy tools in dealing with climate change mitigation policies,

specifically for carbon pricing? Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 7: Environmental Policy (pp. 161-188)

Paterson, M. (2012). Whom and what are carbon markets for? Politics and the development of climate policy. Climate Policy, 12(1): 82-97

Voss, JP, and Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23 (5), 735–754.

Supplementary Readings:

Braun, M. (2009). The evolution of emissions trading in the European Union – the role of policy networks, knowledge and policy entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3), 469-487.

Fisher, D. R., Leifeld, P., & Iwaki, Y. (2013) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change, 116(3-4), 523-545.

Heinmiller, B. T. (2007). The politics of cap and trade policies. Natural Resources Journal, 47: 445.

Markussen, P. and G.T. Svendsen (2005). Industry lobbying and the political economy of GHG trade in the European Union. Energy Policy 33: 245-255.

Meckling, J. (2011) The globalization of carbon trading: Transnational business coalitions in climate politics. Global Environmental Politics, 11(2): 26–50.

Nye, M., & Owens, S. (2008). Creating the UK emission trading scheme: Motives and symbolic politics. European Environment, 18(1): 1-15.

Olive, A. (2015). Assessing intergovernmental institutions and transnational policy networks in North American resource management: Concluding remarks. Review of Policy Research, 32: 163–169.

Rabe, B.G. (2010). The aversion to direct cost imposition: Selecting climate policy tools in the United States. Governance, 23(4): 583-608.

Rudolph, S., & Schneider, F. (2013). Political barriers of implementing carbon markets in Japan: A Public Choice analysis and the empirical evidence before and after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 15(2), 211-235.

WEEK 7 (OCT 20): GROUPS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE POLICY

How have societal groups and social movements influenced contentious morality-based issues, such as same-sex

marriage? How do they mobilize support, legitimize their perspectives, and influence policy? What strategies have groups

used to support or inhibit policies to legalize same-sex marriage across nations? Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 8: Interests and public policy (pp. 189-212)

Ayoub, P.M. (2015). Cooperative transnationalism in contemporary Europe: Europeanization and political opportunities for LGBT mobilization in the European Union, European Political Science Review, 5(2): 279-310.

Dorf, M. C., & Tarrow, S. (2014). Strange bedfellows: How an anticipatory countermovement brought same‐sex marriage into the public arena. Law & Social Inquiry, 39(2), 449-473.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

8

Supplementary Readings:

Adler, G., Hoegeman, C. and West, A. J. (2014). Congregational political activity and same-sex marriage: Social movement theory and evidence for contextual influence. The Sociological Quarterly, 55: 555–586.

Eekelaar, J. (2014). Perceptions of equality: The road to same-sex marriage in England and Wales. International Journal of Law Policy Family 28 (1): 1-25.

Kollman, K. (2014). Deploying Europe: The creation of discursive imperatives for same-sex unions. In P.M. Ayoub et al. [eds.], LGBT Activism and the Making of Europe (pp. 97-118). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Lewis, D. C. (2011). Direct democracy and minority rights: Same‐sex marriage bans in the US states. Social Science Quarterly, 92(2), 364-383.

Olsen, K. A. (2014). Telling our stories: Narrative and framing in the movement for same-sex marriage. Social Movement Studies, 13(2), 248-266.

Overby L.M., C. Raymond & Z. Taydas (2011) Free votes, MPs, and constituents: The case of same-sex marriage in Canada. American Review of Canadian Studies, 41(4): 465-47

Robcis, C. (2015). Liberté, Égalité, Hétérosexualité: Race and Reproduction in the French Gay Marriage Debates. Constellations, 22(3), 447-461.

Sanders, A. E. (2012). When, if not now? An update on civil partnership in Germany. German LJ, 17, 487. Smith, M. (2007). Framing same-sex marriage in Canada and the United States: Goodridge, Halpern and the

national boundaries of political discourse. Social & Legal Studies, 16(1): 5-26

Tamagawa, M. (2016) Same-Sex Marriage in Japan. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12(2): 160-187.

WEEK 8 (NOV 3): FAMILIALISM, FEMINISM AND FAMILY POLICY

How do ideas and social norms about gender roles and families influence the type of policies nations develop to support

families with young children? How do childcare policies compare across nations with respect to their impact on gender

roles and female labour market participation? Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 9: Ideas and public policy (pp. 213-230)

Daly, M. (2011). What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(1):1–23.

Fleckenstein, T. (2011). The politics of ideas in welfare state transformation: Christian democracy and the reform of family policy in Germany. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(4), 543-571.

Supplementary Readings:

Andronescu, C.G., Carnes, M.E. (2015). Value coalitions and policy change: The impact of gendered patterns of work, religion and partisanship on childcare policy across German states. Journal of European Social Policy, 25(2):159-174

Burger, K. (2012). A social history of ideas pertaining to childcare in France and in the United States. Journal of Social History, 45(4), 1005-1025.

Daly, M. (2010). Shifts in family policy in the UK under New Labour. Journal of European Social Policy, 20 (5):433–43.

Fleckenstein, T., & Lee, S. C. (2017). The politics of investing in families: Comparing family policy expansion in Japan and South Korea. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 24(1): 1-28.

Fagnani, J., & Math, A. (2011). The predicament of childcare policy in France: What is at stake? Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19(4), 547-561.

Geva, D. (2011). Not just maternalism: Marriage and fatherhood in American welfare policy. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(1), 24-51.

Lewis, J., T. Knijn, C. Martin, and I. Ostner (2008). Policy perspectives: Patterns of development in work/family reconciliation policies for parents in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK in the 2000s. Social Politics, 15(3): 261-286

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

9

Mahon, R., Bergqvist, C., & Brennan, D. (2016). Social policy change: Work-family tensions in Sweden, Australia and Canada. Social Policy & Administration, 50(2), 165-182.

Milner, S. (2010). ‘Choice’ and ‘flexibility’ in reconciling work and family: Towards a convergence in policy discourse on work and family in France and the UK? Policy & Politics, 38(1): 3-21

Revillard, A. (2006). Work/family policy in France: From state familialism to state feminism? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 20, 133-150.

Seeleib-Kaiser, M., & Toivonen, T. (2011). Between reforms and birth rates: Germany, Japan, and family policy discourse. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(3), 331-360.

White, L. A. (2009). Explaining differences in child care policy development in France and the USA: Norms, frames, programmatic ideas. International Political Science Review, 30(4), 385-405.

WEEK 9 (NOV 10): POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY

How do political parties and electoral politics influence public perceptions of a nation’s immigration policies? In particular,

what has been the impact of centre-right and/or fringe political parties on mainstream party positions? Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 10: Institutions and Public Policy (pp. 231-248)

Abou-Chadi, T. (2016). Political and institutional determinants of immigration policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(13), 2087-2110.

Akkerman, T. (2015). Immigration policy and electoral competition in Western Europe. A fine-grained analysis of party positions over the past two decades. Party Politics, 21(1): 54-67.

Supplementary Readings:

Bale, T. (2008). Turning round the telescope. Centre-right parties and immigration and integration policy in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(3), 315-330.

Black, J.H & B.M. Hicks (2008). Electoral politics and immigration in Canada: How does immigration matter? International Migration & Integration, 9:241–267

Helbling, M., Reeskens, T., & Stolle, D. (2015). Political mobilisation, ethnic diversity and social cohesion: The conditional effect of political parties. Political Studies, 63(1):101–122.

Kashiwazaki, C. (2013). Incorporating immigrants as foreigners: Multicultural politics in Japan. Citizenship Studies, 17(1), 31-47.

Laxer, E., & Korteweg, A. C. (2017). Party competition and the production of nationhood in the immigration context: particularizing the universal for political gain in France and Québec. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1-19.

Lefkofridi, Z., & Horvath, K. (2012). Migration issues and representation in European liberal democracies. Representation, 48(1), 29-46.

Marthaler S. (2008) Nicolas Sarkozy and the politics of French immigration policy, Journal of European Public Policy, 15:3, 382-397

Odmalm, P., & Bale, T. (2015). Immigration into the mainstream: Conflicting ideological streams, strategic reasoning and party competition. Acta Politica, 50(4), 365-378

Schmidtke, O. (2015). Between populist rhetoric and pragmatic policymaking: The normalization of migration as an electoral issue in German politics. Acta Politica, 50(4), 379-398

Triadafilopoulos, T. (2010). Global norms, domestic institutions and the transformation of immigration policy in Canada and the US. Review of International Studies, 36(01), 169-193.

Van Spanje, J. (2010). Contagious parties: Anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics, 16(5): 563–86.

Wagner, M. (2012). When do parties emphasize extreme positions? How strategic incentives for policy differentiation influence issue importance. European Journal of Political Research, 51(1), 64-88.

Westlake, D. (2016). Multiculturalism, political parties, and the conflicting pressures of ethnic minorities and far-right parties. Party Politics, DOI: 1354068816678881.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

10

WEEK 10 (NOV 17): POLICY FRAMING AND CRIMINAL DRUG POLICY REFORM

How does the framing of an issue influence perceptions of the policy problem and its solution? What is the role of

‘evidence’ in the framing process? How has the framing of supervised injection sites (a.k.a. drug consumption rooms)

influenced policies governing their use in different jurisdictions? Presentations.

Required Readings

Lancaster, K. (2014). Social construction and the evidence-based drug policy endeavour. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(5), 948-951.

Hyshka, E., Bubela, T., & Wild, T. C. (2013). Prospects for scaling‐up supervised injection facilities in Canada: the role of evidence in legal and political decision‐making. Addiction, 108(3), 468-476.

Lloyd, C., Stöver, H., Zurhold, H., & Hunt, N. (2017). Similar problems, divergent responses: drug consumption room policies in the UK and Germany. Journal of Substance Use, 22(1), 66-70.

Supplementary Readings

Duke, K. (2013). From crime to recovery: the reframing of British drugs policy? Journal of Drug Issues, 43(1), 39-55.

Euchner, E. M., Heichel, S., Nebel, K., & Raschzok, A. (2013). From ‘morality’ policy to ‘normal’ policy: framing of drug consumption and gambling in Germany and the Netherlands and their regulatory consequences. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 372-389.

Hayle, S. (2015). Comparing drug policy windows internationally: Drug consumption room policy making in Canada and England and Wales. Contemporary Drug Problems, 42(1), 20-37.

Houborg, E., & Frank, V. A. (2014). Drug consumption rooms and the role of politics and governance in policy processes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(5), 972-977.

Jauffret-Roustidea, M., Pedrono, G., Beltzerb, N. (2013). Supervised consumption rooms: The French Paradox. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24(6), 628-630

Jelsma, M. (2016). UNGASS 2016: Prospects for treaty reform and UN system-wide coherence on drug policy. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis.

McCann, E., & Temenos, C. (2015). Mobilizing drug consumption rooms: inter-place networks and harm reduction drug policy. Health & place, 31, 216-223.

Neill, K. A. (2014). Tough on drugs: law and order dominance and the neglect of public health in US drug policy. World Medical & Health Policy, 6(4), 375-394.

WEEK 11 (NOV 24): POLICY TRANSFER AND LEARNING IN LABOUR MARKET POLICIES

(What) can states learn from each other when it comes to public policy? Under what conditions is policy learning – the

transfer of information across boundaries – likely to occur? To be successful? Has policy learning contributed to a

convergence in approaches to labour market policy across nations? Presentations.

Required Readings

Dodds, Chapter 11: Policy Transfer and Learning (pp. 249-268)

Dwyer, P. & N. Ellison (2009). ‘We nicked stuff from all over the place’: policy transfer or muddling through? Policy & Politics 37(3): 389-407

Olsen, G. M. (2008). Labour market policy in the United States, Canada and Sweden: Addressing the issue of convergence. Social Policy & Administration. 42(4), 323-341.

Supplementary Readings

Armingeon K. (2007) Active labour market policy, international organizations and domestic politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 14:6, 905-932,

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

11

Casey, B.H. & M. Gold (2005) Peer review of labour market programmes in the European Union: What can countries really learn from one another? Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1): 23-43

Dingeldey, I. (2007). Between workfare and enablement – The different paths to transformation of the welfare state: A comparative analysis of activating labour market policies. European Journal of Political Research 46: 823–851

Erhel, C. & H. Zajdela (2004). The dynamics of social and labour market policies in France and the United Kingdom: between path dependence and convergence Journal of European Social Policy, 14(2):125–142

Hinrichs, K. (2002). What can be learned from whom? Germany's employment problem in comparative perspective. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 77-97.

Klassen T.R.. & S. Schneider (2002). Similar challenges, different solutions: Reforming labour market policies in Germany and Canada during the 1990s. Canadian Public Policy, 28(1): 51-69.

Kamimura Y. & N. Soma (2013) Active labour market policies in Japan: A shift away from the company-centred model? Journal of Asian Public Policy, 6(1): 42-59

LeGrand, T. (2015). Trans-governmental policy networks in the Anglosphere. Public Administration. doi: 10.1111/padm.12198

Majone G. (2014) Policy harmonization: Limits and alternatives. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16:1, 4-21

Van Vliet, O. (2010). Divergence within convergence: Europeanization of social and labour market policies. European Integration, 32(3), 269-290.

Wood, D. E. (2013). Comparing employment policy governance regimes in Canada and the European Union. Can Public Admin, 56: 286–303.

WEEK 12 (DEC 1): GLOBALIZATION AND GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY How do states and the international community address global policy issues? What types of policy tools do transnational

governing institutions have at their disposal? What has been the impact of the Framework Convention on Tobacco

Control (FCTC) on domestic tobacco control policies? Presentations.

Required Readings:

Dodds, Chapter 12: Policymaking beyond the nation state (pp. 269-296) Mamudu, H., Cairney, P. and Studlar, D. (2015), Global public policy: Does the new venue for transnational

tobacco control challenge the old way of doing things? Public Administration, 93: 856–873.

Supplementary Readings:

Braillon, A. and Dubois, G. (2012), Tobacco Control: Up In Smoke In Europe? Addiction, 107: 1016–1017.

Collin, J. (2012). Tobacco control, global health policy and development: towards policy coherence in global governance. Tobacco Control, 21:274-280. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/stable/41516039

Grüning, T., Weishaar, H., Collin, J., & Gilmore, A. B. (2011). Tobacco industry attempts to influence and use the German government to undermine the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control, 21:30-38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41515397

Kashiwabara, M., & Armada, F. (2013). Mind your “smoking manners": the tobacco industry tactics to normalize smoking in Japan. Kobe J Med Sci, 59(4), E132-E140.

Lavack, A. M. and Clark, G. (2007). Responding to the global tobacco industry: Canada and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Canadian Public Administration, 50: 100–118.

Lencucha, R., Kothari, A., & Labonté, R. (2010). The role of non-governmental organizations in global health diplomacy: Negotiating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Health Policy and Planning, 26(5), 405-412.

Wipfli, H. L., Fujimoto, K., & Valente, T. W. (2010). Global tobacco control diffusion: the case of the framework convention on tobacco control. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1260-1266.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

12

Mamudu, H. M. and Studlar, D. T. (2009). Multilevel Governance and Shared Sovereignty: European Union, Member States, and the FCTC. Governance, 22: 73–97.

Ross MacKenzie, Jappe Eckhardt & Ade Widyati Prastyani, (2017). Japan Tobacco International: To ‘be the most successful and respected tobacco company in the world’. Global Public Health, 12(3)

Hiilamo, H., & Glantz, S. (2017). FCTC followed by accelerated implementation of tobacco advertising bans. Tobacco Control, 26:428-433.

AC AD EM IC AC C O M M O D ATI O N S

The Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) provides services to students with Learning Disabilities

(LD), psychiatric/mental health disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum

Disorders (ASD), chronic medical conditions, and impairments in mobility, hearing, and vision. If you have a disability

requiring academic accommodations in this course, please contact PMC at 613-520-6608 or pmc@carleton.ca for a

formal evaluation. If you are already registered with the PMC, contact your PMC coordinator to send me your Letter

of Accommodation at the beginning of the term, and no later than two weeks before the first in-class scheduled test

or exam requiring accommodation (if applicable). After requesting accommodation from PMC, meet with me to

ensure accommodation arrangements are made. Please consult the PMC website for the deadline to request

accommodations for the formally-scheduled exam (if applicable).

For Religious Observance: Students requesting accommodation for religious observances should apply in writing to

their instructor for alternate dates and/or means of satisfying academic requirements. Such requests should be made

during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist, but no

later than two weeks before the compulsory academic event. Accommodation is to be worked out directly and on an

individual basis between the student and the instructor(s) involved. Instructors will make accommodations in a way

that avoids academic disadvantage to the student. Instructors and students may contact an Equity Services Advisor

for assistance (www.carleton.ca/equity).

For Pregnancy: Pregnant students requiring academic accommodations are encouraged to contact an Equity

Advisor in Equity Services to complete a letter of accommodation. Then, make an appointment to discuss your needs

with the instructor at least two weeks prior to the first academic event in which it is anticipated the accommodation

will be required.

Plagiarism: The University Senate defines plagiarism as “presenting, whether intentional or not, the ideas,

expression of ideas or work of others as one’s own.” This can include:

reproducing or paraphrasing portions of someone else’s published or unpublished material, regardless of the source, and presenting these as one’s own without proper citation or reference to the original source;

submitting a take-home examination, essay, laboratory report or other assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else;

using ideas or direct, verbatim quotations, or paraphrased material, concepts, or ideas without appropriate acknowledgment in any academic assignment;

using another’s data or research findings;

failing to acknowledge sources through the use of proper citations when using another’s works and/or failing to use quotation marks;

handing in "substantially the same piece of work for academic credit more than once without prior written permission of the course instructor in which the submission occurs.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

13

Plagiarism is a serious offence which cannot be resolved directly with the course’s instructor. The Associate Deans of

the Faculty conduct a rigorous investigation, including an interview with the student, when an instructor suspects a

piece of work has been plagiarized. Penalties are not trivial. They may include a mark of zero for the plagiarized

work or a final grade of "F" for the course.

Student or professor materials created for this course (including presentations and posted notes, labs, case studies,

assignments and exams) remain the intellectual property of the author(s). They are intended for personal use and

may not be reproduced or redistributed without prior written consent of the author(s).

Submission and Return of Term Work: Papers must be submitted directly to the instructor according to the

instructions in the course outline and will not be date-stamped in the departmental office. Late assignments may be

submitted to the drop box in the corridor outside B640 Loeb. Assignments will be retrieved every business day at 4

p.m., stamped with that day's date, and then distributed to the instructor. For essays not returned in class please

attach a stamped, self-addressed envelope if you wish to have your assignment returned by mail. Final exams are

intended solely for the purpose of evaluation and will not be returned.

Grading: Standing in a course is determined by the course instructor, subject to the approval of the faculty Dean.

Final standing in courses will be shown by alphabetical grades. The system of grades used, with corresponding grade

points is:

Percentage Letter grade 12-point scale Percentage Letter grade 12-point scale

90-100 A+ 12 67-69 C+ 6

85-89 A 11 63-66 C 5

80-84 A- 10 60-62 C- 4

77-79 B+ 9 57-59 D+ 3

73-76 B 8 53-56 D 2

70-72 B- 7 50-52 D- 1

Approval of final grades: Standing in a course is determined by the course instructor subject to the approval of the

Faculty Dean. This means that grades submitted by an instructor may be subject to revision. No grades are final until

they have been approved by the Dean.

Carleton E-mail Accounts: All email communication to students from the Department of Political Science will be via

official Carleton university e-mail accounts and/or cuLearn. As important course and University information is

distributed this way, it is the student’s responsibility to monitor their Carleton and cuLearn accounts.

Carleton Political Science Society: The Carleton Political Science Society (CPSS) has made its mission to provide a

social environment for politically inclined students and faculty. Holding social events, debates, and panel discussions,

CPSS aims to involve all political science students at Carleton University. Our mandate is to arrange social and

academic activities in order to instill a sense of belonging within the Department and the larger University

community. Members can benefit through numerous opportunities which will complement both academic and social

life at Carleton University. To find out more, visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalsciencesociety/ or come

to our office in Loeb D688.

Official Course Outline: The course outline posted to the Political Science website is the official course outline.

Carleton University PSCI 3405A Department of Political Science Fall 2017

14

Please Note: Classroom teaching and learning activities, including lectures, discussions, presentations, etc., by both

instructors and students, are copy protected and remain the intellectual property of their respective author(s). All

course materials, including PowerPoint presentations, outlines, and other materials, are protected by copyright and

remain the intellectual property of their respective author(s).

Students registered in this course may take notes and make copies of course materials for their own educational use

only. Students may not reproduce or distribute lecture notes and course materials publicly for commercial or non-

commercial purposes without express written consent from the copyright holder(s).

Revised: 29-Aug-17